Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Sat, 10 November 2012 03:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8543221F8586 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:29:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JiSMgICKzyBc for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBC321F8578 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id BD27018C113; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:29:42 -0500 (EST)
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-Id: <20121110032942.BD27018C113@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:29:42 -0500 (EST)
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:29:46 -0000

    > From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>

    > The publication of these RFCs concludes our long standing work item on
    > a revised routing architecture.

Separation of location and identity is very desirable, but it has basically
nothing to do with routing (other than removing identity functionality from
the names used for routing, making them a bit more tractable).

We still have the same old kludgy BGP global routing system we always had,
and _nothing_ has been proposed to improve/replace it.

    > The group has ... helped push the boundaries of routing farther
    > forward.

Nonsense. It has produced no routing work at all.

	Noel